Any optometry practice act defines opticianry?

[optical24/7]

.....So, you see it is a "which comes first, the chicken or the egg" kind of thing.... The only way for that to happen is to require future Opticians to be better.....

(emphasis is mine)

Warren, I have been saying this for years, which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? You know me. We agree on 99% of the subject of requiring education in Opticianry. But what I've never, ever heard from any of the "educate then legislate" crowd is a practical, actually achievable route to take to require that education. Just how are you going to get opticians into the classroom?

In licensed states this is much easier to accomplish, simply require it for licensure. But what about the other 27 states? The only way to get Opticianry educated in those will be to mandate it. How do you mandate it? Only one of two ways...Have employers (private sector) want it bad enough to require it of employees ( no way in h3ll that's gonna happen), Or legislate it.

As tough as getting legislation passed in each state would be, it is a much more achievable way to go than to simply go the "build it and they will come" approach. As I've said before, the vast, vast majority of Opticians will have to be drug into the classroom kicking and screaming,... mandatorily.

What Opticianry needs is a PAC. One that will tackle one state at a time. One cause. One place for the money to go towards...Mandatory licensure. When legislators are educated to the fact that there is no accountability in their state, when they are shown the revenue generated by licensure, when they see it's another project protecting their constituents they can put on their portfolio they are all for it. But when corporate optical comes to them with fists of money, they drop it. ( As you know, I've been through this first hand...) We need the money to counter big optical's lobbyists with our own, dedicated lobbyists.

If "educate then legislate" can work, please, anybody, tell me exactly a realistic and practical way that is going to work.

[Jacqui]

My two cents on the academia issue: IMO college degrees are worse than useless, they are a waste of a students time and money. Far, far better would be an integrated and dedicated program at a Vocational/Technical school where there was an active and open dispensing facility.

A Vo-tech school on the other hand, will bring a student to a certain level of attainment, coupled with knowledge about the art/science AND exposure to real-life situations. These are the things that are not present in a college setting.

This is what I was talking about with the R.N. level education. Most nurses in the Mid-West start with an A.A.S. R.N. and then work on a B.S.N. & M.S.N. part-time. This way they can start at the lower levels of responsibility and as their education and experience raises so does their scope of practice.

Opticians could take the same approach. A.A.S. Opticianry and then more to specialize either dispensing and management or refracting.

You mentioned an active dispensary as part of the school. I'm also a big believer in having a FULL lab as part of it. Surfacing, finishing and AR coating need to be well known before a person can recommend them to a patient and dispense them properly. RGP contacts are not hard to make nor is the equipment and materials expensive, this could also be taught. Making frames by hand, metal and zyl, is not hard and what better way to learn to repair a frame than by actually making one or two.

College is geared towards a rounded "education", however, in order to get that vaunted degree, you are forced to take classes that you will never ever use. Calculus? 2 courses of statistics that teach the exact same material but have two different names, etc etc etc..

This is why I suggested the 4 -5 year Refracting Optician/Optometrist school. I'm not sorry about some of the classes that I took in Nursing and Engineering schools, but I would probably live just as well if I hadn't taken them.

[CNG]

Not meant to offend, Barry, but you stopped at an Associate Degree, and now wonder why you are not qualified to teach? You are competent, but clearly not qualified based on accrediting standards. Those with degrees have proven some level of competence. You can shout to the rooftops about your abilities, but without that degree, it is your voice only. I know, I know, the thousands of patients who love you........but a degree will make a difference. Look at the study does some years back that point to the fact that folks already believe we have a 4-year degree. We have been fooling the public far too long. You should have completed one of the many degree completion programs at several institutions near you. We need good minds to shape students. You do make an excellent point, and exactly what I have been saying for years. We have no consistency in education and training, and if all had a required degree we would all be better off. As to the doctors you describe, you are also correct in pointing out the degree does not assure professional performance, but with a degree Opticians would be in a much better position. We would have at least had some requirement for entering the profession across the country, and in 27 states all that is required is a pulse.

Warren, you have always been passionate about education but really a degree will not really get you paid more as a licensed optician. We have a window of opportunity to change our path and we will be blowing it away trying to get every state licensed and demanding an education requirement for every state. Legislation and all money efforts should concentrate in the states that can pass expansion bills. Every health profession today will seek expansion of scope because of Obama care. It includes PA, Nurses, Occupational therapists, hearing specialists, Nurse Assistants, ODs etc... You will then argue that all those have education standards and I'm not arguing about that. My point is stop your doom and gloom and back what we have and not trying to change something that is an uphill battle. All licensed states have good and bad practitioners, but all have something in common and that is a standard. I for one don't believe in online optical shops because I think that they are scamming the public by not allowing to really have proper measurements and a guided selection of what the patients needs. People will go for the lowest priced because that is human nature. It should be to all licensed practitioners in that the sales of prescription eye-wear online is equivalent to any unlicensed profession being practiced. Will you go to an unlicensed MD ?; people do. In my state we have had fake plastic surgeons, fake dentists and fake many other professionals. To me on-liners are fake opticians. Until we stand and unite in the three O against on-liners this will continue. Money is a heavy motive to commit a crime and online retailers are committing one by breaking dispensing laws in every state. I am with education, I am for licensing and i'm against the unlicensed practice of my profession.

The argument that I have is that right now is not the time to argue that we need education but rather that we need expansion of scope of practice in those states that the majority of us citizens live and where we have licensing laws.

CNG

[MikeAurelius]

I am sorry you feel that way. Most of the world disagrees, thankfully. But hey, you are the guy still touting glass, so you obviously walk a different path than most. The world needs differing views, and we clearly disagree on this one, but I would challenge you on the courses you describe. Most baccalaureate degrees do not require Calculus, and 2 stats classes. But they do attempt to provide a well-rounded educational experience. Technical schools are fine, and teach specific skills, but lack many things a full degree provides.

Try Accounting, which, btw, is now a 5 year course, as taught in most universities. Why? Because the more credit hours that are paid for, the more waste and bloat the universities can spend money on.

And I take issue with the condescending tone of your posts, not only to me, but to Barry and others as well. I get it that you think edumacation is a good thing, but please temper your comments with a little more respect for other opinions.

[Jacqui]

As tough as getting legislation passed in each state would be, it is a much more achievable way to go than to simply go the "build it and they will come" approach. As I've said before, the vast, vast majority of Opticians will have to be drug into the classroom kicking and screaming,... mandatory.

What Opticianry needs is a PAC. One that will tackle one state at a time. One cause. One place for the money to go towards...Mandatory licensure. When legislators are educated to the fact that there is no accountability in their state, when they are shown the revenue generated by licensure, when they see it's another project protecting their constituents they can put on their portfolio they are all for it. But when corporate optical comes to them with fists of money, they drop it. ( As you know, I've been through this first hand...) We need the money to counter big optical's lobbyists with our own, dedicated lobbyists.

Yup

[optical24/7]

Warren, you have always been passionate about education but really a degree will not really get you paid more as a licensed optician. We have a window of opportunity to change our path and we will be blowing it away trying to get every state licensed and demanding an education requirement for every state. Legislation and all money efforts should concentrate in the states that can pass expansion bills.

You will not get any "expansion" bills passed without mandatory education, which even Florida does not require for licensure. Legislators are loath to pass bills that benefit a very small segment of any industry. ( trust me on that one.) You should 1st start concentrating your efforts towards mandatory educational requirements in your state without the apprentice loophole.

Every health profession today will seek expansion of scope because of Obama care. It includes PA, Nurses, Occupational therapists, hearing specialists, Nurse Assistants, ODs etc... You will then argue that all those have education standards and I'm not arguing about that. My point is stop your doom and gloom and back what we have and not trying to change something that is an uphill battle. All licensed states have good and bad practitioners, but all have something in common and that is a standard.

Yes, which includes non-educated, apprentice route licensure. Those other professions do not have apprenticeship routes.


Until we stand and unite in the three O against on-liners this will continue. Money is a heavy motive to commit a crime and online retailers are committing one by breaking dispensing laws in every state. I am with education, I am for licensing and i'm against the unlicensed practice of my profession.

All the kings horses and all the kings men will not stop internet commerce in eyewear. The harder we *push* the more likely scenario is deregulation of eyewear. (Which side of the coin do you believe legislators will go with...Protectionism of a profession or low cost alternatives for their constituents? Also, keep in mind online is just another form of competition. You surely have bottom feeder, low cost B&M competition there already.

The argument that I have is that right now is not the time to argue that we need education but rather that we need expansion of scope of practice in those states that the majority of us citizens live and where we have licensing laws.

CNG

And be danged the un-licenced states? Sorry, this is the attitude I see regularly..."We've got ours, go get your own" from the licensed states.

[CNG]

See your point but right now is not the time to try licensing in any state. We could easily lose what we have accomplished. I personally don't pay my dispenser a dollar more even if they are college educated or apprenticeship trained. I pay equally for licensure but not for experience. The more years , the more commitment, the more compensation. the better my patients are taken care. Would I pay more for a college educated refracting optician who legally could generate Rx, absolutely.

CNG

[Jacqui]

And be danged the un-licenced states? Sorry, this is the attitude I see regularly..."We've got ours, go get your own" from the licensed states.

I hear it too, and it ain't nice

[Joe Zewe]

Try Accounting, which, btw, is now a 5 year course, as taught in most universities. Why? Because the more credit hours that are paid for, the more waste and bloat the universities can spend money on.

And I take issue with the condescending tone of your posts, not only to me, but to Barry and others as well. I get it that you think edumacation is a good thing, but please temper your comments with a little more respect for other opinions.

Actually, accounting is a five year course because many states have increased the credit hours required to be a CPA. For instance, in California, you now need 150 credit hours for certification. Many schools offer a fifth year (usually a master program) so their students can meet these new requirements. I am sure the colleges enjoy the money.

[optical24/7]

What Warren (and I) are talking about is for all Opticianry, not just one, or a dozen states. For the profession as a whole. States with licensure: You already have the vehicle for change, it's power is in your State Board. Push for more educational requirements. You want higher salaries? Supply and demand dictates that. Control the supply though tougher requirements for future opticians (keep in mind I'm not talking about you personally, only the future optician.)

With higher education standards you can then go for legislative changes, when uniformity comes to Opticianry training. But if you care for this field's future, you have to be concerned with the unlicensed states. We won't be able to sustain opticianry in only pockets of the country. Expansion of scope, higher salaries, more opportunities for self employment are only possible by getting these states licensed. You are not going to be able to sustain, thrive and grow, or even remain relevant as a profession...Opticianry.

[Wes]

A population must be well educated to govern itself. If it does not educate succeeding generations, it will fail. This can be seen across professions, cities, and nations.

Is opticianry an allied health care profession? Opticianry (on average, taken from the national perspective) is so far behind every other profession in regards to its skill level and educational requirements that it should currently be considered a trade. From the trades perspective, opticianry often still falls short when determining acceptable minimum standards.

The masses of opticians are not educated well enough to maintain good self governance. This should be obvious to anyone looking at the problem. Of course, the cure is anathema to those most needing it.

It's amazing how well this thread supports my earlier assertions. Opticianry will not expand its scope of practice without expanding the scope of its education. Too many in our population have no formal education, and most of them will never support the need for it. "It's good enough for me (no it's not), then it's good enough for everyone." Taken as a whole, the population of opticians, literally, is too uneducated to govern itself. Of course, the uneducated optician finds no issue with this, while the educated optician stands back with mouth agape, thinking, WTH???

[Barry Santini]

Wes:

You are not, IMHO, gonna get an expansion of educational requirements for opticianry until you can prove the public's basic health, welfare and freedom from harm will benefit. And the yardstick here is "adequate." But adequate is more than sufficient in America today in many things besides eyecare.

If the consuming public wants excellent, that's why Mercedes exists. In optical, that's why ECPs who play outside the insurance game will continue to thrive.

Sure, I'd luv to see a 4 year degree, with emphasis on tangible skills for Opticians. Ain't gonna happen.

My niece recently completed the 4 year, accelerated Master in accounting at Binghampton...with high honors. She had to take the CPA exam (or parts thereof) 3 times before she passed. She was worried about having to take it all over again.

Just example where academia's high standards fall short in the real world.

B

[wmcdonald]

Barry, why is this education's failure? She accomplished a significant goal. The CPA exam is rigorous, and most take more than a single try to complete all the parts. She should be congratulated. But this argument is old, and I have said it all too many times before. As I said before, Elvis has left the building. I love Opticians, and have tried to help with a well-developed plan, but we will never change. Even you, my friend, and these tangible skills you refer to above. I am not sure what they are, but in the past you mention sales above all else, and this is a learned skill for some, but largely about personality, which is not taught. Opticians today in most places have little background in much of anything, and it is difficult at best to sell a device you know little about. We whine about the online folks, but do many of us have any better background than the folks putting those finished spectacles in a box and mailing them? In some states, we have some indication we do, a license. In other places, we do not. Many come to the field for a job, and they leave. It is a quasi-professional endeavor, and easy to do, which is why most come here. They could have been poor students in high school and still been considered a professional. No degree is needed, and no real requirements in most places. Yes, someone mentioned that the most populous states do have licensing laws, but in the legislative arena, that will not hold water. But I am tired. I have made my case for education for many years, and it has been largely rejected. I have my pockets of ardent supporters and they are appreciated, but I am nearing the end of my career. I wish you all very well in the future, and can only hope for good things.

[Wes]

This is like trying to convince a child that his vegetables are good for him.

[Barry Santini]

Education is good. Juts make sure you are educating the right things. Today's schools are, in many cases, not.

B

[tmorse]

Opticianry really should be a 4 year degree.

B

I graduated high school in 1967 and one of my classmates entered Toronto’s College of Optometry, then a 3-year program. The following year Optometry moved to the University of Waterloo as a 5-year B.Sc. in Optometry… first year of general science, followed by 4-years of specialized Optometry training. Today you need an undergraduate B. Sc degree with minimum 75% just to even apply to the U of W Optometry program. This is a classic example of ‘credential creep’.
Opticianry a 4-year program? Modern education philosophies reject pre-determined hours of instruction in any topic so as not to stifle teaching innovation and to take maximum advantage of technological advances in training aids.
It’s all about competencies, not process.
All learning falls into 3-categories…MUST KNOW, SHOULD KNOW AND NICE TO KNOW. A 4-year opticianry program will certainly need a lot of ‘NICE TO KNOW’ content.

[rbaker]

It is a quasi-professional endeavor, and easy to do, which is why most come here. They could have been poor students in high school and still been considered a professional. No degree is needed, and no real requirements in most places.

This may be a profound observation.

As much as we would like to think differently I have never considered opticianry as a profession but rather as a vocational craft even though I graduated from a two year program (WITI) back in 1969. Over the years, we have placed too much trust in the State legislation to protect us and advance our goals rather than learning to stand on our own two feet.

Many years ago I was involved in some discussions concerning the establishment of an organization based upon the "Realtor" model. Briefly, rather than relying on the various States to set up performance standards we would establish very high standards of education and performance for both individuals and businesses. Members would be allowed to display their membership credentials and anyone who falsely held themselves as members would find themselves in a law suite.

The goal would be to insure the consumer the highest standard of care regardles of whatever State or Federal standards dictated (or didn't dictate.)

It was a lot of discussion over a lot of beer. Alas, nothing ever came of it.

PS: This was about the time when the original Guild was in decline.

[wmcdonald]

The Society to Advance Opticianry is such an organization, Dick. But we also want to see Opticianry be more than it is, or ever has been. Our vision moves into the professional realm. We use the analogy of the CPA in accounting.

[Java99]

I wonder how much the price of eyewear will rise when it's only dispensed by opticians with four year degrees?

[MakeOptics]

(emphasis is mine)

Warren, I have been saying this for years, which came 1st, the chicken or the egg? You know me. We agree on 99% of the subject of requiring education in Opticianry. But what I've never, ever heard from any of the "educate then legislate" crowd is a practical, actually achievable route to take to require that education. Just how are you going to get opticians into the classroom?

In licensed states this is much easier to accomplish, simply require it for licensure. But what about the other 27 states? The only way to get Opticianry educated in those will be to mandate it. How do you mandate it? Only one of two ways...Have employers (private sector) want it bad enough to require it of employees ( no way in h3ll that's gonna happen), Or legislate it.

As tough as getting legislation passed in each state would be, it is a much more achievable way to go than to simply go the "build it and they will come" approach. As I've said before, the vast, vast majority of Opticians will have to be drug into the classroom kicking and screaming,... mandatorily.

What Opticianry needs is a PAC. One that will tackle one state at a time. One cause. One place for the money to go towards...Mandatory licensure. When legislators are educated to the fact that there is no accountability in their state, when they are shown the revenue generated by licensure, when they see it's another project protecting their constituents they can put on their portfolio they are all for it. But when corporate optical comes to them with fists of money, they drop it. ( As you know, I've been through this first hand...) We need the money to counter big optical's lobbyists with our own, dedicated lobbyists.

If "educate then legislate" can work, please, anybody, tell me exactly a realistic and practical way that is going to work.

People are going back to school to get into other professions even jobs that were considered low paying are becoming lucrative positions a for instance is teaching.

Opticians have for the most part been insulated, but you may see a job market where a highly educated work force will take positions that are necessarily their majors. When an employer has a choice to make between a high school grad and a college educated individual and the money is the same, the choice is easy.

I think the point is that Warren keeps mentioning change is coming embraced or not. Current opticians can choose to get ahead of the wave or risk missing a gnarley ride, dude.

[idispense]

[QUOTE=rbaker;461509]This may be a profound observation.

As much as we would like to think differently I have never considered opticianry as a profession but rather as a vocational craft even though I graduated from a two year program (WITI) back in 1969. Over the years, we have placed too much trust in the State legislation to protect us and advance our goals rather than learning to stand on our own two feet.

Many years ago I was involved in some discussions concerning the establishment of an organization based upon the "Realtor" model. Briefly, rather than relying on the various States to set up performance standards we would establish very high standards of education and performance for both individuals and businesses. Members would be allowed to display their membership credentials and anyone who falsely held themselves as members would find themselves in a law suite.

The goal would be to insure the consumer the highest standard of care regardles of whatever State or Federal standards dictated (or didn't dictate.)

It was a lot of discussion over a lot of beer. Alas, nothing ever came of it.

PS: This was about the time when the original Guild was




Canada did it. Take a closer look.

[THE MEB]

I haven't been on here for a while, primarily because of my bad health. However, this topic peaked my interest. In my unliscensed state, which BTW, I get no more additional income for acquiring an ABO many years ago, and keeping up CEC's, the OD's completely control the Opticians. I sarted out working for a small chain in Ohio, and then going to one of the top 5 chains as a DM. I found my place when I eventually quit the DM job because I couldn't live with their policies and proceedures, and for the last 24 years have worked for the same 2 OD's in their private practice. I took a 50% pay cut and moved my family hundreds of miles so I could live with myself. Even though I have loved every minute of it, the truth is the OD's completely control Opticians, they even own the paramoptometrics Association in my state, whose meeting coincides with the OD's once a year in our state capital. When I saw the "best minds" of the Optical business were getting together a couple years back to try to improve Opticianry I laughed when I saw there was a man I worked for in this chain so many years ago invited as one of the brains who was going to change Opticianry. It is my humble opinion that is is the chains and the OD's that have held us down more than a lack of a 4 year BS degree, even though I have one in Psychology, but couldn't find a job in my field in 1974.

[jeffsoptical]

My standard warranty phrasing:

It happens a couple of times per year, in fact I've got one in the lab right now where the office had written down the wrong seg height on a progressive. They have to eat it. If more labs would stand up against no charge or discounted redos, then perhaps labs wouldn't have to pass on such discounts to the rest of their customer base as increased charges.

You don't remake a DOCTOR REDO without charging full price to the customer? WOW!!! I'm sorry but the cost of doing business is having redos. I can usually get full credit of progressive redos. SV and others I have to eat the cost. I know that I wish all Doctors did great refractions but they don't. If I'm going to stay in business in Oklahoma where the Optometry board rules, then I have to do remakes or else customers wouldn't give me their business.

Jeff

[kcount]

I wonder how much the price of eyewear will rise when it's only dispensed by opticians with four year degrees?

Aye, there's the rub.

[Stan Tabor]

You don't remake a DOCTOR REDO without charging full price to the customer? WOW!!! I'm sorry but the cost of doing business is having redos. I can usually get full credit of progressive redos. SV and others I have to eat the cost. I know that I wish all Doctors did great refractions but they don't. If I'm going to stay in business in Oklahoma where the Optometry board rules, then I have to do remakes or else customers wouldn't give me their business.

Jeff

A little off topic, but how much is the cost of redos built into the price of lenses? I would rather deal with a lab that gives me the absolute lowest price rather than having to subsidize the mistakes of others. I think there is an attitude that is pervasive in our industry of "no big deal, we can redo it at no charge." Free redos is forcing the lab customers to essentially buy insurance with no regard for the underlying risk of specific customers.